Sanctuary’ Sheriff Ignoring Calls And Emails From ICE After Publicly Calling For Dialogue, Agency Says

Activist law enforcement... just so damned dangerous.

This is the other side of a coin we like, generally, around here.

We'd be cheering if a sheriff refused to enforce red flag laws.

So as distasteful as this idiot is, I think I come down on the side of him pushing back. Out of principle. Not for the cause he's chosen.

I’m not fully aware of the story; however, in the OP, the sheriff invited them to come to his town, not call or email. I would hope my sheriff invites ICE to come and round people up, not just “discuss” it.


Edit to add: Sorry, I just woke up. Sanctuary city says it all. Ignore me until I have a cup of coffee. Lol

Last Edited by 27fletcher on 10/26/2019 07:11 AM

Thank you for the PIN!

Pretty much how banana republics are formed.

Then the Sheriff should be held accountable for any crime committed by a illegal alien, sounds fair to me.

Are you really unable to grasp the situation? The question is whether McFadden is being pushed from the top down, i.e, the Governors' Office, County politicians or powerful agriculture money people in Mecklenburg.

In your analogy to cheering, what if your premise looked like this; " We'd be cheering if a sheriff refused to enforce red flag laws".

Does Alma Adams (D-12th Congressional District) have anything to do with this nonsense?

Personally, I don't care for havens for illegal aliens.

Here are just two examples of the extent of lawlessness for you to acknowledge;

[link to www.foxnews.com (secure)]

[link to www.wbtv.com (secure)]


I'd also like to know what "principle" ,as you say, he's standing up for?

The sheriff Mack argument that the sheriff is the top LEO in a county. Lots of sheriffs have told the feds to get bent (on a variety of issues) and there's been a bunch of support for that around here.

I've already granted that the issue (no ICE) is idiotic. Bad idea, etc. That's not what my point is about and there's no traction there re what I'm saying.

The principle is, briefly: sheriff as nullify-er. Able to toss the Feds out if he'd like - if he thinks what he's being asked to do is unconstitutional.

So this guy is an idiot. The idea, broadly, is a good protection for us.

That make any more sense?

You are so unbelievably stupid it hurts.

your thinking and thought processing remains off.
this sheriff obviously has ideas on running for some political position catering to the left and their alien invasion.

as for this red flag BS ?
we already have them.
go through YOUR state's health and safety,mental hygiene statute and codes,law enforcement jurisdictions right down to the schools.
confiscation has been out here already and remains out here.
Then add when THEY decide to alter their bs codes on WHAT is now declared illegal.

this klown has political ambitions and simply jumped on board w/the mayors and governors of sanctuary cities believing HE IS higher in status than the jerk offs welcoming the newbie alien invaders.
he's a drop in their bucket .
so.....he "pushed back " ?
LOL
are YOU on board with these mayors etc pushing back ?
solely on principle?
LOL

Nope. You're still an idiot.

Yep, it comes down to how a person's behavior either backs up or runs counter to one's politics. But that should be true of any issue and situation in general.

How does a law or a public figure's response to that law fit or run counter to honesty, reality, rationality and integrity?

People and laws that generally have a leftwing bias to them are just about always neither honest nor rational.

The sheriff in this case is pinging the biases of idiotic liberalism, not conservatism. So applying the idea of red-flag laws for this story is similar to saying that having sex with your daughter is the same thing as having sex with your wife.

.

No. Had it not been the sheriff, I'd have not said anything.

The issue (ICE) isn't relevant to my point.

It's about whether the sheriff of a county can say no to the feds.

While angel family bodies pile up and the black market trade increases, these activists get to play the good guys protecting the criminals....those who trade freedom for security deserve neither....

So my line of thinking is this:

Can a sheriff say no to the feds? My answer would be yes.

----

To appease those who are conflating this mess, I'll ask and answer a second question:

Should this sheriff have said to to ICE? No.

----

It's really an important point to understand. The role of a sheriff as the top LEO in a county.

The Sheriff is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Until a "law" is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the Sheriff steps beyond his jurisdiction when he interprets the law as it stands. This is the basis of the argument for removing activist judges as well.

So, as well meaning as your premise seems to be, it doesn't make that much sense to me in the long term.

That's why you have to single out whether a position taken by a public official either makes sense or doesn't. Whether an opinion is logical or not. Whether an opinion fits hard reality or strokes the idiocy of left-leaning f-e-eelings.

That principle needs to transcend state or federal boundaries, demographics (race, ethnicity, gender), nationality, etc.

.

I think it's more like jury nullification than an activist judge. A check. Again, think red flag laws and the 2nd amendment. I'd be fine if a sheriff said that he'd not enforce red flag laws (but I'm a pretty extreme individual rights guy).

And I think it's more a check against activist judges than a parallel to it.

----

Sidenote: in addition to all else on the immigration/invasion issue, I wish people would start making the conversation about property rights, too. It's exceptionally expensive to fund. And that money comes from someone (you and me) at the point of a gun (eventually).

Yeah. It's a terrible position he's taken. I've not argued that. I would argue that it wouldn't be worth getting rid of or minimizing the nullification ability for any single issue. It's really two different conversations.

NO.


"The principle is, briefly: sheriff as nullify-er. Able to toss the Feds out if he'd like - if he thinks what he's being asked to do is unconstitutional"
__
what HE THINKS has fugh all to do with anything.

what's the federal law clearly state on entry ?

In the context of America 2019, when leftist activism runs amok, for a public official to take a stance that feeds into that has to be judged differently compared with a society where public officials are following both the spirit and letter of all laws.

Everyone is cherry picking. But the left is cherry picking until their fingers are swollen and bleeding.

.

Illegal invaders are a problem for the military. Screw local &fed law enforcement let the Marines arrest and neutralize any illegal.

Agree. If we're unwilling to defend our borders, there's really no purpose for the military.

I think ICE should sit down with Barney and Andy and have a nice talk while Aunt Bee serves milk and biscuits.



...

What a friggin traitor. He is aiding the colonization of the US.

 

It's more likely the military will recruit them, than fight them.

 

The plan of tptb is in full motion now, gaining a momentum of its own. Now we sheep are even assisting in the destruction of our country through the removal of our borders. What do we do once the point of no return happens?

just give them real guns.

No it's not about whether the sherrif can say no to the feds.

It's whether the sherrif can refuse to uphold the law.

And the answer is no.

Dumbass

Law and order every time. Unless it takes away from Demcrate voter base